Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

We were wrong

kickstarter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

391–400 of 546 posts

Re: We were wrong

#391

Post by xauronx »

lewispollard wrote: post #65
xauronx wrote: post #4

Jesus, seems like an over reaction. Books and guides like this are nothing new, and should be taken in context/used appropriately. A nerd in a club is going to take this brash advice like: "All the greatest seducers in history could not keep their hands off of women. They aggressively escalated physically with every woman they were flirting with. They began touching them immediately, kept great body language and eye…

I would guess that people buying a seduction guide don't really understand 'women' - in that they believe that women are somehow different, unapproachable and alien to them. The misogyny stems from the book not teaching these people that women are equal and worthy of respect, but instead teaching them to ignore consent and be an 'alpha bro' stereotype.

I don't see it as ignoring consent. If you're on a date with a girl and you hold her hand without asking her, that's not sexual assault or being an alpha bro. If you're having a lively conversation and touch her arm, that's not sexual assault or creepiness, it's being a human and engaging the person you're interacting with.

We all know douche bags that make girls uncomfortable and push the line. We all hate them. They've probably (almost definitely) never read this book. A book/guide like this isn't a bro factory, and won't do anything to an existing bro that a night out with another bro wouldn't do.

Should timid guys trying to seek a companion try to emulate some portion of it? Probably. Friend-zoning is big with timid guys because they never broach the physical bubble. If a nervous guy aims to emulate 100% of this advice they'll probably successfully emulate 20% of it.

Re: We were wrong

#392

Post by doki_pen »

Cushman wrote: post #231
angersock wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have some context: http://pastebin.com/zwHYzCZe Sincerely, A HNer who is ashamed of the lack of reading comprehension of this community right now.

This "defense" misses the point. The gist of the controversial advice is "Don't wait for signs before you make your move. Let her be the one who rejects your advances. If she says no, stop immediately and tell her you don't want to do anything that would make her uncomfortable. Try again at a later time if appropriate or cease entirely if she is absolutely not interested." This is not a defense. This advice leads to…

Most humans can tell if the person they are with is into what they are doing or not. If you can't, then you have problems, maybe asperger or something, idk, not a doctor. I'm not endorsing this guy in any way. The entire thing seems sort of pathetic to me, to be honest. But honestly, it's probably hard to write about things that most people intuit.

Re: We were wrong

#393

Post by Cushman »

figglesonrails wrote: post #383
Cushman wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phrase you're looking for is "enthusiastic consent". You're not looking for a signed contract. You're looking to have absolutely no doubt in your mind that your partner genuinely wants to do what you want to do. That just happens to be about a thousand times easier if you can talk about it like a (sexy) grownup. Believe it or not, one goal of this policy is more, and better sex.

"No doubt in your mind that..." != "It is true that..." This is the problem with your argument. I'll admit it, I don't explicitly "ask consent" and there have been times where there was "no doubt in my mind", and yet, I was rejected. :( But if I was rejected, then I've clearly committed sexual assault in the most strict sense. It's called "misreading a situation". You may think something is enthusiastic consent, but…

Just as long as you understand that in this context, "live dangerously" means that you might rape people without meaning to, just because you couldn't think of a sexy way to say, "So do you wanna fuck?"

That's an easy choice for me.

Re: We were wrong

#394

Post by newnewnew »

lewispollard wrote: post #366
newnewnew wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Women are, funnily enough, female members of the species homo sapiens and there is a lot of scientific evidence on what they find attractive in a potential mate.

Show me this evidence. If that is really your attitude towards women then it's no wonder you feel the need to read a book like this. Try a little respect for your fellow people, you'll have much more fulfilling experiences with women if you stop believing what science tells you and actually take an interest in the people around you

Sure - you're three times as likely to get a woman's number if you ask while walking a dog:

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/homo-consumericus/201007...

A light touch on the forearm also increases the chances of getting a number:

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15534510701316177

That's a start for ya.

There's nothing this society hates more than beta males. Your comment confirms it. God forbid a guy ain't a natural with women and needs some advice. He's probably deformed, deranged, and dangerous.

Re: We were wrong

#395

Post by rlt »

arrrg wrote: post #361
rlt wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you saying you consider that "rape", even if the subjects were already kissing and fondling? I wonder how many people outraged at this have explicitly asked for permission before every step of physical escalation in every one of their relationships.

Yeah, if you do shit like this you are Schrödinger's rapist, i.e. completely dependent on consent you do not know you have.

I have a hard time believing a jury would convict someone of sexual assault for placing someone's hand on their penis if they were already (consensually) fingering that person.

Re: We were wrong

#396

Post by dragonwriter »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #390
blocking_io wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a direct quote from a guide written by the author of the guide under discussion: Never, ever, ever, wait for a SIGN before you escalate! You will miss out on the vast majority of chances if you sit around waiting for SIGNS. Men are notoriously bad at reading women's minds and body language. Don't think that you're any different. From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished…

> The author advises his readers to assume that their partner consents to sexual activity. And this is a direct misinterpretation of what the author said. The author states: > From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished. There is a difference. The author says that you should assume the woman is attracted to you, not that she is consenting to sexual activity. It's pretty damn clea…

> The author states:

> > From now on you must ASSUME that she is attracted to you and wants to be ravished.

> There is a difference. The author says that you should assume the woman is attracted to you, not that she is consenting to sexual activity.

That's not really the most natural reading of what you quote the author as having written. If that's really what the author intended, the word choice ("you must ASSUME she ... wants to be ravished") is quite poor.

  ravish 
    tr.v. rav·ished, rav·ish·ing, rav·ish·es 
    (1) To seize and carry away by force. 
    (2) To force (another) to have sexual intercourse; rape.
    (3) To overwhelm with emotion; enrapture. See Synonyms at enrapture.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ravish

Re: We were wrong

#397

Post by gregd »

bmelton wrote: post #373
gregd wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Kickstarter isn't censoring anybody. They don't have a military to enforce the censorship. They didn't refund the money. They made a donation to RAINN instead. The POS still gets to publish his book and the backers still get their copy. There is no censorship in saying, you don't get to use my platform for that.

From Wikipedia: "Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet, or other controlling body." Kickstarter exercising their control to restrict the publication of this material meets the clinical definition of censorship, even though they aren't the government. Again, I'm not say…

I would argue that with MANY other publishing platforms available to the public, Kickstarter is NOT a "controlling body". Regardless, I believe wholeheartedly that censorship by the government is utterly and completely wrong, I don't believe that in this particular circumstance, it's appropriate to cry "censorship".

Re: We were wrong

#398

Post by figglesonrails »

scarmig wrote: post #330
Samuel_Michon wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> when he talks about how even when she rejects your touching or rubbing her when you first meet He suggests no such thing. He writes about having been on several dates and now you’re alone with her and you’re expected to escalate. His gives some suggestions how to do so, to make it more physical: “Be playful. Spin her around. Pick her up. Push her away as a tease and then pull her back in. Decide that you're going t…

Really? Please. Read the damn quote: Every woman you flirt with. Touch them immediately. Be shameless in your physicality. When a girl rejects your advances, she knows that you desire her, and it arouses her physically and psychologically. Stop trying to evade what the quote says and trying to find some legalistic way of misreading its plain meaning.

I hate to break it to you, but humans (and animals!) value touch very, very much. Flirting without touching is not as effective at creating a bond. Generally, I'd say this advice is fairly sound, if your goal is to make another human being feel more connected to you. But of course, touching someone when they aren't interested does not create a bond, because they weren't interested in the first place.

So yeah, if your goal is play it safe for fear of lawsuits, offense, or rejections, then by all means, do not initiate any physical contact. Expect to be forgettable and for people to tell you "they just didn't feel that spark."

Re: We were wrong

#399

Post by tomp »

Cushman wrote: post #146
Metrop0218 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"it is their judgment, it is their consent that matters. Not yours." Amen brother.

Just to be clear, because this is something misogynists like to pick on, both matter. The point of this is that you can't assume their consent just because you do. Of course, men who don't have experience with not having the power to consent struggle with this idea.

Why do you have to disgrace yourself by using the word "misogynist"?

Re: We were wrong

#400

Post by cm2012 »

loumf wrote: post #203
cm2012 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

First off, I'm also married and have never read a seduction book. However, I'd like to quote some other comments from this thread to refute you. > The thing that the commenters on social media are leaving out is that the advice was taken from a section in the guide offering advice on what to do AFTER a man has met a cute girl, gotten her phone number, gone on dates, spent time getting to know her, and now are alone b…

And yet, Kickstarter can decide that they want nothing to do with it or anything else for pretty much any reason they want. Kickstarter is claiming that they won't allow seduction manuals period ("we are prohibiting 'seduction guides,' or anything similar, effective immediately."). They have the right to do that. If you really need a seduction manual, you need to shop elsewhere.

Yes, I'm just refuting the post above mine which stated that the manual was a terrible moral wrong.
Post reply on HN